From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15865 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2014 17:48:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 15842 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2014 17:48:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-qg0-f53.google.com Received: from mail-qg0-f53.google.com (HELO mail-qg0-f53.google.com) (209.85.192.53) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:48:15 +0000 Received: by mail-qg0-f53.google.com with SMTP id q107so281203qgd.26 for ; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 10:48:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.140.51.101 with SMTP id t92mr30782004qga.36.1413136093675; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 10:48:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.236.2 with HTTP; Sun, 12 Oct 2014 10:48:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <543A9464.50308@gmail.com> References: <543A8208.9060605@gmail.com> <543A9464.50308@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 17:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gdb/i387-tdep.c: Avoid warning for "-Werror=strict-overflow" From: Iain Buclaw To: Chen Gang Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Mark Kettenis Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00298.txt.bz2 On 12 October 2014 15:47, Chen Gang wrote: > On 10/12/14 22:13, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 12 October 2014 14:28, Chen Gang wrote: >>> gdb requires "-Werror", and I387_ST0_REGNUM (tdep) is 'variable', then >>> compiler can think that I387_ST0_REGNUM (tdep) may be a large number, >>> which may cause issue, so report warning. >>> >>> Need fix this warning, and still keep the code clear enough for readers. >>> The related warning under Darwin with gnu built gcc: >>> >> >> I had noted the same on GCC 5.0.0 development, found that the line >> number in the warning was wrong and raised a bug >> (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63510), just didn't get >> round to submitting a patch for gdb. >> > > But for me, what compiler has done is correct: "-Werror=strict-overflow" > need include "(X + c) >= X" for signed overflow. And our case matches > this case: > The compiler has done right, but that still doesn't stop the reported line number being wrong. -- Iain.